24team European Championships

Quote:

---

EURO proposal
Following a proposal from the Scottish Football Association (SFA), the Congress will also be asked to approve a feasibility study into expanding the UEFA European Championship final round to include 24 teams. Latvia, Republic of Ireland and Sweden have given the SFA their support in requesting this proposal, according to Olsson, who added: "The views of the executive committee are positive to the idea of making a feasibility study. I think also individual members of the executive committee have said that they are positive to the idea because there are now more members of UEFA."

---

Interesting this. At the moment to qualify for a Euro's we need to be in the top 16 teams which is a little above where we would expect to be. But I would say if there were 24 teams we should 'expect' to qualify if we are at par. Looking back at all our play off defeats you have to say we'd have been in a lot of 24 team Euro's. Even in this campaign if the top 3 qualified in the group you would say we still had some hope. No surprise what countries support it. Of course the tournament itself would be a mess (6 groups of 4 I assume with some 3rd place teams in a last 16?)

The tournament would, I presume, be run the same way as the World Cup from 1986 to 1994 - four best runners-up get through.

I don't think the quality of opposition is there to expand the tournament to 24 teams.

Based on current world rankings the top 24 teams in Europe are
Italy
France
England
Germany
Netherlands
Portugal
Czech Republic
Spain
Ukraine
Sweden
Croatia
Greece
Switzerland
Romania
Denmark
Poland
Russia
Scotland
Turkey
Serbia
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Israel
Northern Ireland


We're 25th. I guess the question is how much would having the bottom 8 teams improve the championships? Some not bad teams there who are as good as the middle 8. Also would mean that the top teams have less chance of not qualifying, even Steve McClaren should get England into the top 3 in their group. I can see this being agreed. The only problem is that it will be even harder for small countries to host it, therefore either rotate it around England, Italy, Germany, Spain and France or have more shared tournaments.

Don't see any inherent problems with shared tournaments. Think it's good to give countries like Belgium/Holland, Poland/Croatia, Japan/Korea, etc a chance to host a tournament which they wouldn't be able to do on their own.

Would be good to see more countries who don't usually qualify for tournaments get a bigger chance of making the grade, although at almost half the continent, 24 may be a bit excessive. Wouldn't have a particular problem with it, I suppose. Though could see it being rejected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

Based on current world rankings the top 24 teams in Europe are
Italy
France
England
Germany
Netherlands
Portugal
Czech Republic
Spain
Ukraine
Sweden
Croatia
Greece
Switzerland
Romania
Denmark
Poland
Russia
Scotland
Turkey
Serbia
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Israel
Northern Ireland


We're 25th. I guess the question is how much would having the bottom 8 teams improve the championships? Some not bad teams there who are as good as the middle 8.

---

I only see Scotland and possibly Turkey and Russia being the only decent teams between 17 and 24. IMO Poland, Romania and Greece (I don't care if they won it, they're crap) would be a good bit behind the others if you counted the top 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

...shared tournaments...
...Poland/Croatia...

---

I take it you're not a geography student! Poland and Croatia are no where near each other. IIRC Croatia has tried joint bids with Hungary and Bosnia, but I've never heard of them teaming up with Poland!

I'm not sure what to make of a 24-team tournament. Obviously we'd qualify for more tournaments, but I wouldn't wish to effectively confine the hosting EUROs to the big five countries; I'd say even Belgium & the Netherlands would have had a bit of difficulty hosting a 24-team tournament, and very few other potential joint bids would be able IMO, certainly not Scotland & Ireland :o !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

I only see Scotland and possibly Turkey and Russia being the only decent teams between 17 and 24. IMO Poland, Romania and Greece (I don't care if they won it, they're crap) would be a good bit behind the others if you counted the top 16.

---

Bit harsh on Serbia IMO - they've consistently qualified for the big tournaments. Granted they got spanked by the Argies in the WC but I still think they'd be far better than Scotland and Russia and probably better than some of the teams in the middle section. take your point on the rest of those lower teams though, most of them are sh!te....having said that we wouldn't be much better and I deffo wouldn't be complaining if we qualified because of this!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

I'm not sure what to make of a 24-team tournament. Obviously we'd qualify for more tournaments

---

It's not just that we'd qualify for more tournaments, we should expect to qualify for all European Championships.

Looking back since 1988

In '92 there were only 8 qualifiers, we came second in our group to England and failed to qualify, would have made it into a 16 team tournament never mind a 24 team tournament.

In '96 (firt 16 team tournament) we wer in effect the 17th team and lost to Dutch in a play off. Would have made a 24 team tournament.

In 2000 we came second in our group and lost the play off to Turkey, again woudl have made a 24 team tournament.

And in 2004 we came third and may have got into a playoff for a 24 team tournament.

I'd trade the current 10-20% chance of us making it into a 16 team tournament for the 70-80% chance of us making a 24 team tournament, even if they are all held in Germany!

By the way not sure how much of an impact it would have on who could host it. Euto 2004 had ten venues for 16 teams and WC 2006 had 12 for 32 teams. It seems it's the first round where you need a large number of stadia. Assuming a 2 week first stage a 24 team tournament would be 36 first round matches. Would have thought that was easy with 12 stadia and do-able with 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

I take it you're not a geography student! Poland and Croatia are no where near each other. IIRC Croatia has tried joint bids with Hungary and Bosnia, but I've never heard of them teaming up with Poland!

---

Sorry, it's Poland and Ukraine, not Croatia. My mistake!

Everybody seems to assume it would be 6 groups of four. It quite possibly would be 8 groups of 3 with the 8 winners into a quarter final. Would it be a smaller tournament?

bring it on , anything that gives us a better chance of qualifying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Ogba

Bit harsh on Serbia IMO - they've consistently qualified for the big tournaments. Granted they got spanked by the Argies in the WC but I still think they'd be far better than Scotland and Russia and probably better than some of the teams in the middle section.

---

Missed Serbia- they're a good side alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

Everybody seems to assume it would be 6 groups of four. It quite possibly would be 8 groups of 3 with the 8 winners into a quarter final. Would it be a smaller tournament?

---

I'd say that's unlikely as it would mean each team would play only two games in the group stages. It's only one less, but 2 would be a ridiculously small number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

Everybody seems to assume it would be 6 groups of four. It quite possibly would be 8 groups of 3 with the 8 winners into a quarter final. Would it be a smaller tournament?

---

Can't have teams knowing the exact result they need in the last game to go through like that.

Nah couldnt have that. 24 teams in it would dilute the quality. It would be like the champions league with 2 group stages. Too much dilutes the quality.
I mean lok at the World Cup. 32 teams in there and teams like Togo getting hammered. I cant remember 1 match that sticks out in this Summers World Cup and it would be the same with the Euros if they expanded it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da-Mini

Nah couldnt have that. 24 teams in it would dilute the quality. It would be like the champions league with 2 group stages. Too much dilutes the quality.
I mean lok at the World Cup. 32 teams in there and teams like Togo getting hammered. I cant remember 1 match that sticks out in this Summers World Cup and it would be the same with the Euros if they expanded it.

---

Yes but we'd be there! If someone offered you a 16 team Premier League as a Cobh fan wouldnt you take it?

It would make hosting the finals much more expensive and awkward.

The qualification for the finals would also be less compelling as 50% of UEFA teams would qualify for the finals.

Non-runner IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da-Mini

I cant remember 1 match that sticks out in this Summers World Cup

---

Really??? :confused:

How about France v Brazil, or France v Italy even. Or perhaps T&T v England, or Sweden v England?
Even the first half of Japan v Brazil was exciting.
Seriously, you can't remember one game..?! :eek:

==============

What about a 20 team with 4 groups of 5 (like the UEFA Cup, or the Heineken Cup)? :)

Altough 24 would help teams like NI and ROI qualify more I think the tournament would end up being held every time in the same few countries. I believe in potentially greater number of teams making play offs from the current groups, but thats just because i want my own country to have a greater chance. There would need to be alot of thought before any ideas like this go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

What about a 20 team with 4 groups of 5 (like the UEFA Cup, or the Heineken Cup)? :)

---

I think that's quite a good idea, shouldnt be that much harder to arrange, the only probloem is that odd number of teams in the group means one team has to sit out the last round of matches and you get Germany Austria situations. If seeding was done properly then you would guess the best way of doing this is for the last games to be seed1 v seed 4 and seed 2 v seed 3

Absolute joke. Not enough quality just like the inflated World Cup. That should have been left as 24 teams but greed got the better of them. Garbage like Saudi Arabia at the WC demeans the tournament. What can they learn by getting hammered?

Same in this proposal in having one third of European countries at the finals.:rolleyes:

KOH

Quote:

---

Garbage like Saudi Arabia at the WC demeans the tournament

---

At least there is merit in spreading the gospel to far-flung blackspots of the world, it gives the chance to small countries to make a name for themselves- i'm talking not about saudi but further down the food chain in asia like bahrain or such, if they think there is no chance of ever getting to a world cup its very unlikely our game will ever prosper there.
europe is a much more competitive entity than the world though, the results in qualifiers are becoming much less predictable(italy lithuania, and remember LATVIA got to the last euros anyway with greece blooding winning the thing!) showing that the gap is narrowing, whether that is the good teams deteriorating or others catching up is debatable and you could argue that once tournament play comes round the better teams will get their act together but that certainly didnt happen last euros. also the geographic nature of europe means that there is incomparably more rivalry in say a germany austria match than a saudi germany match.
also the qualifying phase would be shaved down appeasing clubs- or maybe scrap the qualifying altogether, i think there are 51 teams in UEFA so you could have 2 championships, (decided a la the eircom league!), with maybe the 8 quarter-fianlists getting 'promoted' from the second tier. realistically it would be a waste of time england, france etc being forced to qualify for a 24 team tourny. obviously a lot of fleshing out needs to be done but i must get back to work for now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NY Hoop

Absolute joke. Not enough quality just like the inflated World Cup. That should have been left as 24 teams but greed got the better of them. Garbage like Saudi Arabia at the WC demeans the tournament. What can they learn by getting hammered?

Same in this proposal in having one third of European countries at the finals.:rolleyes:

KOH

---

I wholeheartedly agree that for the sake of football in Europe and the watchability of the tournament its a fairly crap idea.

However as it means we are at least twice as likely to qualify, I give it my complete support.

I guess thats the illogical fan in me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

Really??? :confused:

How about France v Brazil, or France v Italy even. Or perhaps T&T v England, or Sweden v England?
Even the first half of Japan v Brazil was exciting.
Seriously, you can't remember one game..?! :eek:

==============

What about a 20 team with 4 groups of 5 (like the UEFA Cup, or the Heineken Cup)? :)

---

Actually i said i cant remember 1 match THAT STICKS OUT in last Summers World Cup. France vs Brazil was alrite. France vs Italy had a few moments. T&T vs England you gotta be kidding me. Sweden vs England was alrite. There wasnt a real Stand out game that defines that world cup. I dont think any of those matches would make it onto a best of CD and thats what your looking at with a 24 team Euros.
Although I like the sound of Heineken Cup Style format. Could work with teams having to win more or less all their matches and goal difference being important they would be going all out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

Yes but we'd be there! If someone offered you a 16 team Premier League as a Cobh fan wouldnt you take it?

---

Fair point. And ya i would take it but thats 16 club teams. But internationals is different.

surely the serbia argentina match is worthy of some mention. the football the argies played that day will certainly live long in my memory. cambiasso's goal????

of course argentina isnt in europe, alas

i dont see the logic in saying the fact that an extended euros would mean there is less chance of great games. this is very simple, if there are more games there is better chance of good games. maybe the overall standard of all the games might be worse(i'm not convinced). if you want some stand out games then it inherently follows that the more games there are the greater the likelihood of these fabled great games. you might have to sit through more rubbish but at least a pot of gold may await.

if anyone watched the slovenia serbia(again?) match from euro 2000 i'm sure they'd agree that the passion, skill and excitement was a joy to behold and was probably one of the best of that tournament. the chances of that match-up reoccuring is extremely unlikely.
or ireland,NI,scotland, england, wales matches, i.e. matches where national pride is really at stake (not like many WC games) is realistically a once in a blue moon event(at least for us at the moment). they are the matches that make the blood boil and given the density of countries in europe and our histories(russia v ukraine would be juicy) i think a 24 team event could throw up some real 'stand out' games where national pride is magnified. the ensuing rivalry would make the tournament much better as a whole and also the pre and post match banter would be unreal, adding to the whole aura of the competition to make it much more compelling viewing for fans and neutrals alike...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da-Mini

Actually i said i cant remember 1 match THAT STICKS OUT in last Summers World Cup

---

Then which matches from any of the last four World Cups ACTUALLY DO stand out? I think you'll find that personal circumstances, nostalgia and TV re-runs have a habit of making ordinary world cup matches seem like epics.

Personally I think Germany this year was better than any of Italia 90, USA 94, France 98 or Japan/Korea 02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

Then which matches from any of the last four World Cups ACTUALLY DO stand out? I think you'll find that personal circumstances, nostalgia and TV re-runs have a habit of making ordinary world cup matches seem like epics.

Personally I think Germany this year was better than any of Italia 90, USA 94, France 98 or Japan/Korea 02.

---

Fair enough point:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

Then which matches from any of the last four World Cups ACTUALLY DO stand out? I think you'll find that personal circumstances, nostalgia and TV re-runs have a habit of making ordinary world cup matches seem like epics.


Personally I think Germany this year was better than any of Italia 90, USA 94, France 98 or Japan/Korea 02.

---

would re-runs not make one realise that, in hindsight, a game was not as good as first thought? its a pity we dont get them here, what interest have canadians in sawcar, grrrr.


Hate those debates to be honest, the standard of jerseys was best at USA 94, ya but england werent knocked out of that one, true but asian world cups are always the best, but only when a south american team beats a european one the final and on ad nauseum

The standard of jerseys WAS the best at 94 though... Each one was quite revolutionary and a departure... Germany's! Wow! USA's stars all over the place, Pink and yellow ref jerseys, Jorge Campos, Cameroon's Mitre Jersey, the list goes on... (Zips up anorak and skulks quietly away)

A joke, while their at it why not include every European country!!!

You may be on to something there by including all UEFA countries, maybe reduce the game time to 45 minutes, ah feck it 30 is enough. Oh lets make the pitch smaller, how about 5 players on each team? That's it, let's make the Euro finals a five-a-side speed tourney. We go at it 7x24, non-stop action. Add some cheerleaders and mascots a great day out. An amazing TV event. I'm excited.:cool:

News just in - FIFA have devised a new, all in one, all encompassing Group for the next World Cup Qualifers - its called "The Earth".

Ireland have roughly 133 teams in their group. The fixtures list may be tight -but I've always fancied a trip to Sierra Leonne.